Don't know how could it be fitted in the section, or if it's relevant enough to warrant it. Seems it is going to be problem enough just to keep Xeross' initial statement, or any other,up. - Spirou 07:23, 15 March 2014 (EDT)

As the issue regarding Dutch Furrave has been resolved with the actual founder/owner Edwin, there is no reason to keep this (incorrect) information up other then defamation or libel. Which is against international law Article 17 of the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Dutch law Article 216 of Penal Code and Article 167 of book 6 of the Civil Code. And as mentioned by Pebbles/Xeross (which is the same person) he is no longer involved with the Dutch Furrave.[1]
It seems like my page is created with a proxy[2], so I am not the creator of the page but I do own its intellectual property. So I like to request to reinstate my last edit or remove the page completely. (Whatever is more convenient.) - ArcanaTigris 03:12, 16 March 2014 (CET/UTC+1)

That something has been resolved (Which as far as I know it isn't) doesn't change the fact that it occurred, returning something does not mean the theft never occurred, thus it does not warrant removal of this section. This is the last I'll say about it, Spirou can decide what he thinks is best. -Pebbles

As mentioned on the page WikiFur does not require complete neutrality, but as it remains now it only contains your delusional point of view. Which is far from neutral at all and is only intended to vilify me. We could all create pages about people we have personal issues with and put colorful stories on it, but I don't think WikiFur is intended for that. - ArcanaTigris 15:38, 19 March 2014 (CET/UTC+1)

This is just pure slander at this point, that some supporters of these edits to this page are just dramawhores, let's try to save the quality of WikiFur shall we? Drama shouldn't be listed here unless the person would actually endanger people as in the case of Bart Bervoets. The fact that some money got taken from an account which he had a bankcard for is not endangering, and it seems to be solved. --DaxHyena 14:13, 19 March 2014 (EDT)

There is a point that I need some clarification on about to bring to whole thing in perspective: "As the issue regarding Dutch Furrave has been resolved with the actual founder/owner Edwin". Was the issue theft, as argued, a normal withdraw regarded incorrectly as theft, or just a simple withdraw?. If there an "issue", what was it?. The information on the page, and the refuting arguments so far seem a little bit nebulous. Solving the "issue" still means something happened. A little more of info could finally put this contention to rest. - Spirou 05:04, 20 March 2014 (EDT)

Two sides of this story, told from both sides differently, no real proof of things. He had the bankcard of the account, given to him as he was one of the few or even the only one that owned the account. For the rest no real proof exists in what the context is properly explained. While I believe ArcanaTigris side of the story since some of the people telling the story are people who are known to cause drama, however this is seen as a more outsider view in a way. The whole community in this country is clustered in groups, while some move between groups and some like me stay out the groups and sit back. Either way, I am not advocating right or wrong here, but should we 1. List peoples misteps if they aren't endangering others? Then we should start listing people who get speeding tickets and doing drugs. We really should only list people who are actually endangering the community like people lying about STD status and Rapists. 2. Benefit of the doubt anyone? No-one is convicted, any evidence is non-consistent/non-existing. Innocent unless proven otherwise. Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat, the burden of proof is on he who declares, not on he who denies. --DaxHyena 20:15, 20 March 2014 (EDT)

So in short, no, you don't know the real story either. Thank you anyways. - Spirou 22:27, 20 March 2014 (EDT)

Our goal is to serve the public interest, and in particular, the interest of the furry community. It may be in that interest to report allegations which do not involve physical damage; even those which do not involve criminal acts. This role is similar to that of artists_beware. For example, if it is alleged by credible staff members that another staff member misused convention funds, it may be a good thing to know, so that they do not become staff at another event. We are not a court and do not need to prove that one side or another side is correct, in part because we have no power to compel resulting action. But we should seek to accurately represent the assertions of relevant parties, with attribution to them, rather than represent one side's assertions as fact. --GreenReaper(talk)

People lie though, and a lot of these staff members aren't taken serious for reasons by most of the community here anyways. Benefit of the doubt is recommended. What you have here is just two people telling stories with their own interest without any proof. It's also staff for small time rave that has relatively little attendance. It's a glorified furmeet. The story has been told by the two parties and it's not gonna get any more detailed because of the lack of details. From both sides. When you own a bank account, you withdraw legally. There is no stolen card. Especially by one of the heads of an event. --DaxHyena 14:10, 21 March 2014 (EDT)